Cohesion Counts

Breaking Down Barriers by Philosophical Discussion

This is a Cohesion Counts overview of the project. Click here for the project leader’s report.

Project Objectives
What the Project Did
Did it Work?
Learning Points from this Project
Learning Points – Evaluation

Project Objectives

The overall aim of the project was to evaluate the community cohesion impacts of engaging residents in philosophical discussion in Alt and Kirkholt. Both neighbourhoods had individual objectives of improving perceptions and relationships between people from different ethnic and social backgrounds, areas of the neighbourhood and ages.

(back to top)

What the Project Did

Contour Housing Group were commissioned to work on engaging residents by using philosophical discussion to explore some of the issues neighbourhood officers felt existed on the two (mainly socially rented) estates.

Using the techniques of philosophical enquiry residents were brought together in local community centres for something to eat and drink and to ultimately carry out enquiries about the issues. For Kirkholt the focus was intergenerational and the issues for teenagers and older people on the estate. In Alt, the focus was slightly wider, taking in issues of social and ethnic differences that existed there.

Contour aimed to engage community members who reflected the issues to be discussed, as this was thought to be a good way to increase positive impact. We also wanted to investigate breadth of impact, to see whether those directly involved in the project had any influence over changing the perceptions of their family and neighbours in the same neighbourhood.

(back to top)

Did it Work?

The project had many positive impacts among participants in both neighbourhoods, increasing confidence levels along with feelings of satisfaction with and belonging to a neighbourhood.

In Kirkholt, the difference in perceptions among the adults before and after the project in how they felt about the teenagers in the area was outstanding, with many now feeling much more confident to go out and about in their neighbourhood without fear of the teenagers hanging around the local shops. Whether this would have been achieved simply by getting adults and teenagers together without using philosophical enquiry is hard to say.

For the teenagers, and their perceptions of the adults in Alt, the results were less dramatic and they would have perhaps benefitted more had the project run over a longer period. The sessions in Kirkholt were well attended, with 25 teenagers and adults there each week. At times, this made it difficult for everyone to speak in depth at each session, sometimes resulting in a lack of depth in the discussion.

In Alt, where eight people (mainly adults) attended the sessions, issues were discussed in depth, with positive impacts. The participants demonstrated through pre and post evaluation that their views on many topics had changed. The main challenge in Alt was engaging residents that represented the topics of ethnic and social differences being discussed, and although participants made great progress, this may have been further enhanced had that mix been achieved.

(back to top)

Learning Points from this Project

The following learning points are drawn from the conclusions of the evaluation of this project, taking into account the feedback from stakeholders and evidenced impact among participants.

1. Groups of 10-15 participants work well in fully developing and building relationships in a group and in completely exploring the issues raised by the enquiry.
2. A minimum of 8 sessions appears to work well to fully develop a group, especially when covering sensitive or contentious issues.
3. Although perceptions of ‘people from different backgrounds’ can be addressed well in any philosophy group, a representative mix of who you want to take through the journey works best in changing perceptions and behaviours related to the demographic mix you have within that group.
4. If using philosophical enquiry sessions to increase consultation and engagement activity, use recruitment methodologies such as networking with groups and individuals and through word of mouth to pick up those not already engaged and harder to reach groups.
5. Incentive payments are not necessarily needed with all groups but work well in recruiting younger participants. However, it is important to ensure that participants want to be an active part of the philosophy sessions, as providing incentive payments is unlikely to change this

(back to top)

Learning Points – Evaluation

1. Pre and post questionnaires work well but only if participants want to fill them out and have some private space, away from other participants to do so.
2. Revisiting the post evaluation in six and twelve months after the last session is essential in examining the medium to long term impacts of the project.
3. Get creative with your methodologies, especially with teenagers, children, participants for whom English isn’t a first language and participants with disabilities. Use statement cards to track changes in perceptions and behaviours rather than a questionnaire, use diary room with no interviewer to encourage less confident participants to speak up, and encourage the use of individual written methodologies such as blog entries and diary keeping, for those participants who feel more comfortable writing down their thoughts.
4. Include a ‘breadth of impact’ methodology to examine how wide an impact the project has had. ie., have participants influenced the perceptions and behaviours of their family members and friends? Use an opportunity such as an end of project celebration/get together in order to carry out some informal evaluation among families and friends and look at the breadth of impact.

(back to top)